The real reason for keeping “HD” FM on life support: Translators?

[TheBigA]

I'm being facetious, but the exact arguments being used by radio failed in webcasting's case - though radio has the legal precedent necessary to give the lie to the whole set of shenanigans. As long as those webcasting royalties are there, it's a threat to radio.

Not exactly. People can and do steal music from the web. It was for that specific reason that the Digital Millenium Copyright Act was passed, granting them this royalty. It was an attempt to compensate them for their losses. And webcasters can charge subscription fees for their content, and can shut it off to those who fail to pay. Radio doesn't have that revenue stream.

 

[hubcity]

I'm being facetious, but the exact arguments being used by radio failed in webcasting's case - though radio has the legal precedent necessary to give the lie to the whole set of shenanigans. As long as those webcasting royalties are there, it's a threat to radio.

Not exactly. People can and do steal music from the web. It was for that specific reason that the Digital Millenium Copyright Act was passed, granting them this royalty. It was an attempt to compensate them for their losses. And webcasters can charge subscription fees for their content, and can shut it off to those who fail to pay. Radio doesn't have that revenue stream.

Before I go completely ballistic on that point, let me ask you: do radio stations' Internet web streams qualify as perfect copies of record industry product? Does a good quality FM signal? Does a good quality HD signal?

 

[TheBigA]

Before I go completely ballistic on that point, let me ask you: do radio stations' Internet web streams qualify as perfect copies of record industry product? Does a good quality FM signal? Does a good quality HD signal?

Radio stations must pay performance royalty (as well as publisher royalty) on their web streams, regardless of quality. That is a digital signal.

The other two signals you mention are analog signals, so they are not comparable to CD quality, regardless of what iBiquity says. You don't see the RIAA suing people who record off FM or HD. And radio stations are not allowed to charge a subscriber fee for its FM or HD signal.

Don't "go ballistic" on me...I'm just the messenger here. If it was up to me, no one would pay royalty. But I don't make the laws.

 

[hubcity]

Before I go completely ballistic on that point, let me ask you: do radio stations' Internet web streams qualify as perfect copies of record industry product? Does a good quality FM signal? Does a good quality HD signal?

Radio stations must pay performance royalty (as well as publisher royalty) on their web streams, regardless of quality. That is a digital signal.

The other two signals you mention are analog signals, so they are not comparable to CD quality, regardless of what iBiquity says. You don't see the RIAA suing people who record off FM or HD. And radio stations are not allowed to charge a subscriber fee for its FM or HD signal.

Don't "go ballistic" on me...I'm just the messenger here. If it was up to me, no one would pay royalty. But I don't make the laws.

You do realize that digital signals are often not comparable to CD quality, yes? (Low bitrate HD radio, for instance.)

That's the problem - the law *doesn't* make that distinction. All digital transmissions of a work are treated as making a perfect copy to the transmitted work available. Doesn't matter whether you are transmitting an uncompressed 44.1kHz bit-for-bit copy of a CD, or a 32kbps 22kHz webstream, the law regards digital reproduction as perfect.

That's a lie.

 

[TheBigA]

You do realize that digital signals are often not comparable to CD quality, yes? (Low bitrate HD radio, for instance.)

I didn't write the law, so it doesn't matter. And as I said, using that bad law to justify another bad law aimed at analog radio doesn't change the fact that they're both bad laws.

 

[hubcity]

Going back to your earlier comment:

People can and do steal music from the web. It was for that specific reason that the Digital Millenium Copyright Act was passed, granting them this royalty. It was an attempt to compensate them for their losses.

It sounds like you're making "stealing music from the web" the distinction between why webcasting should, and radio shouldn't, pay a performance royalty. Have I misunderstood that?

My point is that it's a poisonous law whose toxicity now threatens radio. "Stealing music from the web" was a sham argument to get this law applied to webcasters, and now that this precedent exists, it's serving as a sham argument to extract additional payment from radio for services already rendered.

 

[TheBigA]

It sounds like you're making "stealing music from the web" the distinction between why webcasting should, and radio shouldn't, pay a performance royalty. Have I misunderstood that?

This is not MY distinction. It was the specific reason the law was enacted. Read the law.

 

[hubcity]

What's your point in telling me to read the law? I've read it. I know (intimately) what it requires. I'm also expressing an opinion that I think you're not disagreeing with - are you?

 

[TheBigA]

My opinion won't change the law.

 

[hubcity]

As they say on CNN, we'll leave it there, then.

 

[stacker]

This thread seems to have "wandered off into the weeds"

What your experience with the HD translators in your market? Do you hear any? Are they imaged for the HD-x channel or for the translator frequency?

 

[Play Freebird]

This thread seems to have "wandered off into the weeds"

What your experience with the HD translators in your market? Do you hear any? Are they imaged for the HD-x channel or for the translator frequency?

There aren't any yet in my local market, but I'm familiar with some in NY and PA. Here are the websites, I'll let you draw your own conclusions about imaging:

http://www.hits1033.com/

http://www.987thevine.com/

http://www.thetouch953.com/

 

[audioguy]

Freebird,

Were these stations analog stations that added HD channels (which is what the web sites seem to indicate), or were they HD channels that added translators that are now the "main" channels?

It seems confusing....

 

[Play Freebird]

Freebird,

Were these stations analog stations that added HD channels (which is what the web sites seem to indicate), or were they HD channels that added translators that are now the "main" channels?

It seems confusing....

It is confusing.

In the case of "Hits 103.3", this was hurriedly put on the air by Saga a couple of years ago immediately after a locally-owned Top 40 station (WFIZ) entered the Ithaca market. The FCC's database provides a good chronology:

WFIZ filed for its license to cover on 9/16/08. An HD transmitter was quickly installed at WYXL, Saga's AC station (digital notification filed 9/25/08) and an existing WYXL translator at 103.3 was modified to rebroadcast HD-2, rather than the main channel of WYXL it had been carrying for years. At the same time, the translator power was increased to 250 watts (license to cover filed 9/24/08). Obviously, Saga's plan was to foil this new competitor, but the strategy hasn't worked; the Arbitron 12+ numbers show WFIZ rising to a strong third place in less than two years (looming only a point behind WYXL's main channel) while WYXL-HD2 didn't even show in the book.

Saga later purchased a second translator for WYXL and added an HD-3 to serve as its "primary", but this doesn't seem to be making headway either. Next time I drive through Ithaca, I'll find out whether the translators take an off-air feed from WYXL by means of an HD tuner, or are fed directly from the studio. If they actually rebroadcast the HD signal, the codec artifacts should be easy to hear.

"The Touch" in Harrisburg was originally on WTCY, an AM station on 1400. Cumulus purchased the 95.3 translator license from another owner and moved it to the mountaintop site of their FM station WNNK. Originally, it was licensed as an AM translator of WTCY, but several months later, the urban "Touch" format was taken off the AM and moved to WNNK-HD2, so now the translator is considered a rebroadcast of WNNK. But for some unknown reason, it hasn't made an appreciable impact in the latest Arbitron ratings. Maybe the diary-keepers don't know how to report it?

BTW, the former WTCY now carries a sports format and its callsign has been changed to WHGB.

 

[nd2023]

This abuse of translators should be stopped. Allow the translators currently doing this to continue, but don't let anyone else start an HD2 translator. And when translators are required to get HD, the current translators must translate the HD2 in HD, not analog. Yes, even if a station with my favorite format enters a market on an HD2 translator, I'm still opposed to this abuse of technology. Translators are meant to provide fill in service where the analog signal is weak or blocked by terrain. Not translate a religious station 1000 miles away, or translate an HD2 on the same tower as the main station being translated.

Jukebox Radio 103.1/99.7 was shut down because of translator abuse, and that station was a good locally-programmed oldies station. 103.1 is a translator located in Fort Lee, NJ, just across the river from NYC. It translated a 94.3 about 40 miles away, and that 94.3 was translating a class A 99.7 located in the middle of nowhere. The station was imaged as 103.1, and claimed to serve New York City. This operation was shut down and you guessed it, the 3 stations became wastes of space: religious stations. This was before HD Radio was even an idea. My point is, if they couldn't do what they were doing, why should big corporations be allowed to do essentially the same thing: shoehorn another station into the market.

These translators should at least count towards the ownership cap if they relay the HD2. Big radio corporation could keep their translator if they give up one of their full power stations. That's fair. Oh, and the HD Alliance should forbid HD2s from airing commercials again.

 

[TheBigA]

Big radio corporation could keep their translator if they give up one of their full power stations. That's fair.

It's fair if a 35 watt station is the same as a 50K station.

It sounds like you want specific laws targeted at big radio owners, exempting smaller owners. That's discrimination.

The Commission approved HD Radio. They did it with the intent of providing more stations for the public. But people can't hear the stations because it requires a new radio. If the Commission isn't going to mandate receivers (and they're not), then stations should be able to place whatever licensed content they want on their translators.

 

[Gatekeeper007]

One thing I see talked about here is the basic lack of HD radio's in the general public's hands. If I remember right there was a certain date set back in the late 60's that radio's must inclued FM tuners. I believe this would be a good idea for HD radio on FM there by giving a date broadcasters could work with to expect that listeners could receive and listen to their respective HD feeds. AM HD is not a good idea in my opion due to excessive bleed over problems and longer night time range and interference.

 

[TheBigA]

I believe this would be a good idea for HD radio on FM there by giving a date broadcasters could work with to expect that listeners could receive and listen to their respective HD feeds.

The FCC has said that it is not going to do that. It approved the technology, but will not mandate it on radios.

 

[Savage]

The Commission doesn't give a flying rip about "audio broadcast services." That's why they have rolled over every single time for iBiquity.....essentially, the official attitude appears to be:

There. We gave you everything you wanted, NAB, Alliance and iBiquity. We approved a proprietary system so you don't have to worry about competing technology. You wanted 24-hour AM IBOC, you got it. You wanted your digital FM increase, we gave you the max. We stacked the deck against the filing of any technical complaints, obstructing any likely legal challenges based on interference.

So you got your hybrid-digital system. The rest is up to you. Go make it work for your industry. (And implicitly - don't keep coming back to the well asking for more mandates and preferences.)

 

[CTListener]

So, yes, some HD multicast channels are very interesting, but generally within the noncommercial band. I haven't ever seen an HD multicast station promoted outside of the station's own environment. A billboard for an HD2? Not likely.

There's a billboard up on I-91 in New Haven for WMRQ Hartford's Christian Contemporary HD-3!